TO: Franklin Conservation Commission
FM: George Russell, AICP
Conservation Agent
RE: Agent’s Report
DATE: August 11, 2015
1.0. Projects
1.1. Regulation Amendments: Included in your packets is the memo from the last meeting which outlines the proposed amendments and the rationale behind them. Should the Commission think these amendments are in their best interest, a vote to adopt is in order and new regulation packets will be developed.
1.2. 12 Forge Parkway RDA: The application is being filed under the local by-law only; the retention basin within the 100’ buffer of the proposed work is man-made and thus not subject to the state regulations. The project, the expansion of an off-street parking area, should not impact the jurisdictional area since all “new” stormwater is being directed away from the basin. I would therefore recommend a negative determination.
1.3. 21 Peck St. RDA: This application has been filed as a response to the deposition of vegetative material on a stream bank. (See letter and photos in your packets.) Following Commission precedent, the property owner has engaged a wetlands scientist to look at the area and provide a recommendation. This recommendation is also included in your packets. I would recommend a negative determination and that the property owner be allowed to remove the material as per Ms. Catrone’s report and I will conduct a follow-up inspection after the grass etc. has been removed.
1.4. 700 Lincoln Street NOI: This is a culvert replacement project and given the condition of the culverts currently in place, badly needed. Even though this is a town project and will have an on-site inspector, I would recommend that stipulation numbers 20, 21, 28, 34 & 44 be attached to the approval.
1.5. 620 Pleasant St. NOI: No additional plans or information has been received and I would suggest another continuance is in order. The issue raised at the last meeting concerning the deposition of vegetative debris in the buffer zone still needs to be addressed.
I have met with the property owner to try and “solve” the issues and determine a how to proceed.
2.0. General Business
2.1. Minor Buffer Zone Activities
None
2.2 Permit modifications/extensions
2.2.1. 438 West Central St.: This item was continued from the last meeting. My recommendation remains the same: this permit should not be extended do to the non-compliance with the original Orders.
2.2.2. Villages at Oak Hill: The requested modification involves tree and vegetation removal. I would suggest this does not rise to the level of a new NOI. However, I do see one potential issue when the project is ready to be “closed out” and this is the coordination between the instant applicant and the developer of the project. It is imperative that both of these entities be aware of what the other is doing so as to not complicate the development of the as-built plans and the timing of the NOI that is in force and will need an engineer’s certification to be released from conditions.
2.3. Certificate of Compliance
2.3.1. 9 Molly Lane: The submitted engineer’s certification indicates significant differences between what was approved and what was built in that the road has been moved and the stormwater basin has not been constructed. The original NOI was for the entire development and has expired. In addition, the requested release is for lot 3A and there is no lot 3A on the original plan. Therefore, given that there is no provision in 310 CMR 10.05 (9) (a) for an extension of the 21 day time frame for the Commission to act, I must recommend a denial of the release. The “problem” originates from the fact that the NOI was approved before the subdivision was approved by the Planning Board; the plans approved by the Board are different that those approved by the
Commission and no modification to the Commission approved plans was ever requested or granted.
On a final note, the original NOI approval CANNOT be modified since the approval has lapsed.
2.4. Discussion items
2.4.1. Open Space and Recreation Plan (OSPR) Update: This item has been placed on the agenda for the reasons outlined in my August 5, 2015 memo which was included in your packets. I would recommend the Commission begin consideration especially on the process to be followed for the update of the OSRP so that this process can be implemented ASAP.
2.4.2. 11 Vine Street: At the last meeting the Commission granted an MBZA for a deck at 11 Vine Street and stipulated “no pressure treated wood”. Since that meeting, I have checked with the Building Commissioner and done some research on these wood products. There is no building code prohibition on the use of pressure treated wood and the heavy metal arsenic is no longer used in the manufacture of the wood. This is the first time the Commission has restricted the use of this material and a number of decks have been approved using this wood as MBZAs since I have been on board. I would respectfully submit that this restriction is not warranted.
2.5. Minutes
2.6. Violations:
3.0. Chair and Commission Comments
4.0. EXECUTIVE SESSION
| 
